6 ms·
Notes: 1. The most realistic speed is actually 186mph (300kmh) max making for a ~90min trip between Seattle and Portland - which is still great. 2. There's a
by kposehn 10y ago
Notes:
1. The most realistic speed is actually 186mph (300kmh) max making for a ~90min trip between Seattle and Portland - which is still great.
2. There's a completely alternate alignment for a good chunk of the Seattle-Portland distance (former Milwaukee road branch lines and the old chela is western). There is also a rebuilt alignment of the old Tacoma western that will just went in service that will cut 30min off then trip from Tacoma to Olympia anyway.
3. Interestingly, it shouldn't be thought of as a mid-distance intercity train. It's a commuter train at higher speed. In Japan a huge number of people commute on the Shinkansen. Imagine if you could commute in 20min from Everett to Seattle or Olympia to Tacoma.
- jrpt 10y agoSure it'd be nice, but at what cost? The estimate of $125 million to $1 billion per mile is incredibly expensive.
- bildung 10y agoIs cost per mile a reasonable metric? Shouldn't that be cost per passenger per year or something similar?
- Arnt 10y agoBoth are, for different purposes. Cost by distance is reasonable for talking about construction (the supply side). See https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r... for an overview. Even $125m/mile places the project a little high on that list, among mostly-tunnel and all-tunnel projects, and $1b/mile is in the WTF zone. Cost by passenger or passenger-trip is reasonable for talking about utility (the demand side).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- melling 10y agoAn important thing is the getting the right of way, because that only gets more expensive with time. 186 mph today, 350 mph in 50 years, which will make the cities commutable. At some point in this century, maglevs will become popular in all those countries that built high-speed rail. In the US, it will be too expensive to build because we thought cars were a better mode.
- nikomen 10y agoIn addition to right away for high-speed rail only getting more expensive over time, what about the necessary I-5 expansions that will probably be needed sometime this century? I've only driven on I-5 up that way a few times since I'm not from the PNW, but I'm not even sure I-5 could be widened in some areas. It seems that increasing car-traffic flow in the future might be just as expensive as putting in rail. I hear people complain about light rail and high-speed rail being boondoggles because of their expense, but if the same right of ways needed to be purchase for new road construction, wouldn't road construction cost be pretty close to the cost of the rail line? This doesn't even include the amount of underfunding across the country for road maintenance and the fact that property tax and gas tax don't come close to funding the maintenance needs.
- adrianN 10y agoTrack side equipment is really expensive.
- avn2109 10y ago>> "I'm not even sure I-5 could be widened in some areas" The fundamental law of road congestion [0] states that you can't build your way out of a traffic jam. This is because adding a new mile of road creates new supply X while simultaneously inducing demand Y, where Y > X in almost all transit markets where anyone wants to live. In e.g. the Seattle area, Y >> X. As the name suggests, this is the most salient fact about highway construction. Yet it is widely ignored in urban planning circles. [0] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616
- marssaxman 10y agoWhat is "the old chela"? Couldn't find anything on the web that seemed relevant - I guess this is a nickname for an obsolete rail line, but where did it run?
- kposehn 10y agoI meant old Chehalis Western. It autocorrected :)
- marssaxman 10y agoHa! Oh, those helpful AIs. Found the map now, thanks.